Announcement

**chequita guevara** · January 9, 2004, 17:46

DL!!!!!

**Dinner** · January 9, 2004, 17:46

**BustaMike** · January 9, 2004, 17:52

Our Krsna consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately?

This reminds me of that Fundametalist Chrisitan Science Fair link where the little girl "proved" that life cannot come from non-life by leaving a brick of charcoal, some water, and a multivitamin in the sun for a week.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · January 9, 2004, 17:54

Which one gets closed?

**Moti** · January 9, 2004, 17:56

"The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog.

[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.10]

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare....

**Richelieu** · January 9, 2004, 17:58

Originally posted by Moti
"The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog.

[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.10]

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare....

Another French bashing thread i see...

**Moti** · January 9, 2004, 17:59

Therefore we refuse to accept any controller of this universe, because as soon as we accept some controller, then we'll have to account for our sinful activities. As soon as there is a government, then we shall be responsible for our unlawful activities. But our position is that we want to continue our sinful activities. As such it is very good to deny any controller. That is the basic principle of godlessness. Why these rascals, they deny there is no God, God is dead? Because they want to continue their rascaldom without any restriction. That is the basic principle, they deny. But do you mean to say that denying the God, the God will die or God will..., there will be no God? No. There is a nice Bengali proverb, sakuni svape garu more na. Sakuni means the vulture. The vulture wants some dead carcass of animal, a cow especially. So for days together they do not get it, so it is cursing some cow, "You die." So does it mean that by his cursing the cow will die? Similarly, these vultures, sakuni, they want to see God is dead. At least, they take pleasure, "Oh, now God is dead. I can do anything nonsense I like." This is going on. Sakuni is cursing, the vulture is cursing the cow.
So this sort of knowledge will not do. One must know that there is a controller. That is the beginning of knowledge. Why should you deny? In every field of activity we find some controller. How can I deny that there is no controller of this creation?

[Srila Prabhupada Lecture from Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.12, Montreal, August 18, 1968]

**Boris Godunov** · January 9, 2004, 18:10

Re: Darwinism Extinct

Originally posted by Moti
Darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. Those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. So he says survival and extinction go side by side.
Srila Prabhupada. Nothing is extinct. The monkey is not extinct. Darwin's immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing.

First - The monkey isn't Darwin's forefather. Monkey's and men share a common ancestor, which is extinct.

Second - Evolution never says a species and its progenitor can't exist side-by-side for some time. It would be nonsensical to say otherwise.

Third - Nothing is extinct? Uh, try about 99% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. Unless you have a Dodo or trilobyte we don't know about.

Karandhara. Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing?.

Oh lord. "Natural selection" is a term that applies to natural environments being more condusive to certain evolutionary traits than other. It has nothing to do with any conscious "chooser."

Dr. Singh. Darwin also says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually.
Srila Prabhupada. Then what is his explanation for how the process of evolution began?.

How evolution began doesn't matter in terms of showing that evolution itself indeed occurs. Abiogenesis is not really a part of evolutionary theory. But there are many theories of how life originated.

Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?".

Now this is just dumb. "We don't know how to do it now, so it must be impossible!"

Well, it has been done. In 1952, the Miller-Ulrey experiment showed that organic compounds developed spontaneously in a very basic mixture of Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and other inorganic material. All that was needed was electricity. Since then, the same results have been achieved using other chemical solutions more accurate for the primordial earth.

The rest doesn't interest me, but at least we dealt with this nonsense.

Welcome.

**rah** · January 9, 2004, 18:21

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Which one gets closed?

I closed the third one created, if he starts another, he will share the same fate.

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · January 9, 2004, 18:38

If I remember correctly, this freak used to post on CFC. CivNation in saffron robes.

**molly bloom** · January 9, 2004, 18:51

All in all I preferred the 1950s version- you know,

'Hare rama lama dama ding dong.'

At least it had a good beat, and you could dance to it.
Try doing that in a saffron sheet, and you'll fall flat on your Sri Aurobindo.

**Moti** · January 9, 2004, 18:55

Re: Re: Darwinism Extinct

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Third - Nothing is extinct? Uh, try about 99% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. Unless you have a Dodo or trilobyte we don't know about.

.

The following answers your extint argument:

Devotee: But Darwin says there are many species, like dinosaurs, that are seen to be extinct.
Srila Prabhupada: What has he seen? He is not so powerful that he can see everywhere or everything. His power to see is limited, and by that limited power he cannot conclude that one species is extinct. That is not possible. No scientist will accept that. After all, all the senses by which you gather knowledge are limited, so how can you say this is finished or that is extinct? You cannot see. You cannot search out. The earth's circumference is twenty-five thousand miles; have you searched through all the layers of rock and soil over the whole earth? Have you excavated all those places?
Devotee: No.
Srila Prabhupada: Therefore our first charge against Darwin is this: He says there were no human beings millions of years ago. That is not a fact. We now see human beings existing along with all other species, and it should be concluded that this situation always existed. Human life has always been there. Darwin cannot say there was no human life.
Devotee: We don't see any dinosaurs existing.
Srila Prabhupada: You do not see because you have no power to see. Your senses are very limited, so what you see or don't see cannot be authoritative. So many people--the majority of people--say, "I don't see God." Shall we accept, then, that there is no God? Are we crazy for being devotees of God?
Devotee: No, but dinosaurs--
Srila Prabhupada: But simply by dinosaurs being missing you cannot make your case. What about all the other species?
Devotee: Many, many others are also extinct.
Srila Prabhupada: Say I accept that many are extinct--because the evolutionary process means that as an earlier species gradually changes into a later species, the earlier vanishes, becomes extinct. But we see that many monkeys are still here. Man evolved from the simians, but simians have not disappeared. Monkeys are here, and men are here.
Devotee: But still I'm not convinced. If we make geological investigations all over the world, not just here and there, but in many parts of the world, and in every case we find the same thing--
Srila Prabhupada: But I say you have not studied all over the world. Has Darwin studied all the continents on this planet? Has he gone down into the depths of the seas and there excavated all the layers of the earth? No. So his knowledge is imperfect. This is the relative world, and here everyone speaks with relative knowledge. Therefore we should accept knowledge from a person who is not within this relativity.
Devotee: Actually, Darwin hit upon his theory because of what he observed on his voyage in 1835 to the Galapagos Islands, off the coast of South America. He found there species that exist nowhere else.
Srila Prabhupada: That means he has not seen all the species. He has not traveled all over the universe. He has seen one island, but he has not seen the whole creation. So how can he determine what species exist and don't exist? He has studied one part of this earth, but there are many millions of planets. He has not seen all of them; he has not excavated the depths of all the planets. So how can he conclude, "This is nature"? He has not seen everything, nor is it possible for any human being to see everything.
Devotee: Let's just confine ourselves to this planet.
Srila Prabhupada: No, why should we? Nature is not only on this planet.
Devotee: Because you said that on this planet there were complex forms of living beings millions and millions of years ago.
Srila Prabhupada: We are not talking about this planet, but about anywhere. You are referring to nature. Nature is not limited or confined to this planet. You cannot say that. Nature, material nature, includes millions of universes, and in each and every universe there are millions of planets. If you have studied only this planet, your knowledge is insufficient.
Devotee: But you said before that millions of years ago on this planet there were horses, elephants, civilized men--
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, yes.
Devotee: But from hundreds of different sources there is no evidence.
Srila Prabhupada: I say they are existing now--men, horses, snakes, insects, trees. So why not millions of years ago?
Devotee: Because there is no evidence.
Srila Prabhupada: That doesn't mean... ! You limit your study to one planet. That is not full knowledge.
Devotee: I just want to find out for the time being about--
Srila Prabhupada: Why the time being? If you are not perfect in your knowledge, then why should I accept your theory? That is my point.
Devotee: Well, if you claim that millions of years ago there were complex forms of life on this planet--
Srila Prabhupada: Whether on this planet or on another planet, that is not the point. The point is that all species exist and keep on existing by the arrangement of nature. We learn from the Vedic texts that there are 8,400,000 species established. They may be in your neighborhood or they may be in my neighborhood--the number and types are fixed. But if you simply study your neighborhood, it is not perfect knowledge. Evolution we admit. But your evolutionary theory is not perfect. Our theory of evolution is perfect. From the Vedas we know that there are 8,400,000 forms of bodies provided by nature, but the soul is the same in all, in spite of the different types of body. There is no change in the soul, and therefore the Bhagavad-gita (5.18) says that one who is wise, a pandita, does not see the species or the class; he sees oneness, equality. Panditah sama-darsinah. One who sees to the bottom sees the soul, and he does not find there any difference between all these species.
Devotee: So Darwin and other material scientists who have no information about the soul--
Srila Prabhupada: They're missing the whole point.
Devotee: They say that all living things tend to evolve from lower to higher. In the history of the earth--
Srila Prabhupada: That may be accepted. For example, in an apartment building there are different kinds of apartments: first-class apartments, second-class apartments, third-class apartments. According to your desire and qualification, as you are fit to pay the rent, you are allowed to move up to the better apartments. But the different apartments are already there. They are not evolving. The residents are evolving by moving to new apartments as they desire.
Devotee: As they desire.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. According to our mentality at the time of death, we get another "apartment," another body. But the "apartment" is already there, not that I'm creating the "apartment."
And the classes of "apartments" are fixed at 8,400,000. Just like the hotel-keeper: he has experience of his customers coming and wanting different kinds of facilities. So he has made all sorts of accommodations to oblige all kinds of customers. Similarly, this is God's creation. He knows how far a living entity can think, so He has made all these different species accordingly. When God thinks, "Come on, come here," nature obliges. Prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani (Bhagavad-gita 3.27): Nature is offering facility. God, Krsna, is sitting in the heart of the living entity as Paramatma, and He knows, "He wants this." So the Lord orders nature, "Give him this apartment," and nature obliges: "Yes, come on; here is your apartment." This is the real explanation.
Devotee: I understand and accept that. But I'm still puzzled as to why there is no geological evidence that in former times on this planet there were more complex forms.
Srila Prabhupada: Why are you taking geological evidence as final? Is it final? Science is progressing. You cannot say it is final.
Devotee: But I have excavated all parts of the world, and every time--
Srila Prabhupada: No. You have not excavated all parts of the world.
Devotee: Well, on seven continents.
Srila Prabhupada: Seven continents is not the whole world. You say you have excavated the whole world, but we say no, not even an insignificant portion. So your knowledge is limited. Dr. Frog has examined his three-foot-wide well, and now he claims to know the ocean.
Experimental knowledge is always imperfect, because one experiments with imperfect senses. Therefore, scientific knowledge must be imperfect. Our source of knowledge is different. We do not depend on experimental knowledge.
Now you see no dinosaurs, nor have I seen all the 8,400,000 different forms of life. But my source of knowledge is different. You are an experimenter with imperfect senses. I have taken knowledge from the perfect person, who has seen everything, who knows everything. Therefore, my knowledge is perfect.
Say, for example, that I receive knowledge from my mother: "Here is your father." But you are trying to search out your father on your own. You don't go to your mother and ask; you just search and search. Therefore, no matter how much you search, your knowledge will always remain imperfect.
Devotee: And your knowledge says that millions of years ago there were higher forms of life on this planet.
Srila Prabhupada: Oh, yes, because our Vedic information is that the first created being is the most intelligent, the most intellectual person within the universe--Lord Brahma, the cosmic engineer. So how can we accept your theory that intellect develops by evolution? We have received our Vedic knowledge from Brahma, who is so perfect.
Dr. Frog has studied his three-foot well, his little reservoir of water. The Atlantic Ocean is also a reservoir of water, but there is a vast difference. Dr. Frog cannot inform us about the Atlantic Ocean. But we take knowledge from the one who has made the Atlantic Ocean. So our knowledge is perfect.
Devotee: But wouldn't there be evidence in the earth, some remains?
Srila Prabhupada: Our evidence is intelligence, not stones and bones. Our evidence is intelligence. We get Vedic information by disciplic succession from the most intelligent. It is coming down by sruti, hearing. Vyasadeva heard from Narada, Narada heard from Brahma--millions and millions of years ago. Millions and millions of our years pass, and it is not even one day for Brahma. So millions and billions and trillions of years are not very astonishing to us, for that is not even one day of Brahma. But Brahma was born of Krsna, and intelligent philosophy has been existing in our universe from the date of Brahma's birth. Brahma was first educated by God, and His knowledge has been passed down to us in the Vedic literature. So we get such intelligent information in the Vedas.
But those so-called scientists and philosophers who do not follow this system of descending knowledge, who do not accept knowledge thus received from higher authorities--they can't have any perfect knowledge, no matter what research work they carry out with their blunt senses. So whatever they say, we take it as imperfect.
Our method is different from theirs. They are searching after dead bones, and we are searching after living brains. This point should be stressed. They are dealing with dead bones, and we are dealing with living brains. So which should be considered better?

**yaroslav** · January 9, 2004, 18:55

Good post, Boris. i'd post something similar, but you did it very good

**Moti** · January 9, 2004, 19:01

Re: Re: Darwinism Extinct

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Oh lord. "Natural selection" is a term that applies to natural environments being more condusive to certain evolutionary traits than other. It has nothing to do with any conscious "chooser."

.

the above is WORD jugglerly...

One must know that there is a controller. That is the beginning of knowledge. Why should you deny? In every field of activity we find some controller. How can I deny that there is no controller of this creation?

Announcement

Darwinism Extinct

Darwinism Extinct

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment